Back
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, JJ
M/s Aditya H.P. Centre through its sole proprietor, Smt. Aman Parmar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases – Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 4239 of 2020 | Civil Writ Petition No. 3338 of 2020 | Civil Writ Petition No. 2703 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. Ajay Sharma, Ms. Aanandita Sharma, Sh. Arvind Sharma, Sh. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Sh. Ramakant Sharma
For the Respondents: Sh. Lokinder Pal Thakur, Sh. K.D. Sood, Sh. Shrawan Dogra, Sh. Mukul Sood, Sh. Neeraj Sharma, Sh. Sushant Vir Singh Thakur, Sh. Vishal Panwar
Guidelines by Indian Roads Congress and MoRTH are essential for ensuring public safety in allotments of fuel outlets. Non-adherence renders such allotments void.
Headnote:(A) Indian Roads Congress guidelines; Ministry of Road Transport and Highways guidelines; 2009 guidelines for roadside fuel stations - Petitioners challenged the allotments of retail sale outlets for petroleum products made by IOCL, citing violations of IRC and MoRTH guidelines regarding distances from intersections and procedural requirements. (Paras 4, 6, 9)
(B) Public safety and infrastructure development - The court emphasized that adherence to prescribed guidelines is crucial for public safety and proper urban planning, stating that both IRC and MoRTH guidelines are applicable to the regions discussed. (Paras 23, 26)
(C) Judicial review - Provisions ensuring judicial review must be exercised against arbitrary actions of public authorities; the court found the allotments to be vitiated for non-adherence to statutory requirements. (Paras 33)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought to quash the allotments made to Agro Industries and an individual dealer, claiming violations of established guidelines regarding distances for fuel outlets from intersections with major roads. Respondents denied relevance of those guidelines, arguing they are non-statutory. (Paras 4-8)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the IRC and MoRTH guidelines are applicable and were not followed in the allotments made. Allotments quashed and directions given for future compliance with established norms. (Paras 33)
Issues: Whether IRC and MoRTH guidelines are applicable in the cases and if the allotments can be considered valid or not. (Paras 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the essential nature of following safety and procedural guidelines in the allotment of retail outlet dealership to prevent arbitrary or unreasonable actions by public authorities. (Paras 25)
Result: All petitions allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek to quash allotments. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. contested validity of allotments based on distance violations. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. importance of infrastructure and public safety guidelines. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. applicability of irc and morth guidelines affirmed. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. court quashes allotments for non-compliance with guidelines. (Para 23 , 33) |
ORDER
All these writ petitions have been filed with prayer to quash allotments, of following retail sale outlets for petroleum products (for short “outlet”), made by respondents No. 2 and 3 (for short “IOC”):
(i) in favour of respondents No.4 and 5 (for short “Agro Industries”) at Village Bohan, Tehsil Jawalamukhi, District, Kangra Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 3338 of 2020 and CWP No. 4239 of 2020.
(ii) In favour of Shri. Satwant Singh (Respondent No. 4) in CWP 2703 of 2020 in Mohal Thara, Sub Tehsil Dulehar, District Una, Himachal Pradesh
2. Petitioners in CWP No.4239 of 2020 and CWP. 2703 of 2020 themselves are retail outlet dealers of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), whereas petitioner in CWP No.3338 of 2020 has filed the petition as pro bono publico.
3. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the petitions, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
4. The common case of the petitioners in all the petitions is that the allotment of outlets by IOC in favour of Agro Industries and Shri Satwant Singh are in violation of the guidelines framed by Indian Roads Congress (IRC) and Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH).
5. It is not in dispute that the outlet, in CWP No. 3338 of 2020 and CWP No. 4239 of 2020, is being established on a plot of land adjacent to road leading from Jawalamukhi to Dehra in District Kangra and outlet in CWP No.2703 of 2020 is being established adjacent to Ajoli Mod to Pohlian via Tahliwal road in District Una. Both these roads are Major District Roads (MDRs) declared by Government of Himachal Pradesh.
6. Petitioners contend that IRC has framed guidelines for access, location and layout of road side fuel stations and service stations (third revision) 2009. Similarly, MoRTH has also formulated and issued guidelines for grant of permissions for construction of access to fuel stations, way side amenities, private properties, rest area complexes, connecting roads and such other facilitates/establishments. The latest of such guidelines have been circulated on 26th June, 2020 and prior thereto were the guidelines framed in 2013, which were almost the same in material particulars. Petitioners have maintained that IOC while making allotment in question has not adhered to the requirements of these guidelines and in absence thereof the allotment is vitiated.
7. In CWP No.3338 of 2020, petitioner has taken exception to allotment of outlet in favour of Agro Industries on the grounds:
(i) As per above guidelines issued by IRC and MoRTH the distance between 1000 meters to 300 meters is required to be maintained from the intersection of NHs/SHs/ MDRs, whereas in the present case it is about 70 meters approximately.
(ii) The requisite distances from the intersections of National Highway and also from a Village Road have not been considered and applied.
(iii) The allotment has been made without issuing advertisement of proposed allotment, (iv) In addition, the petitioners in CWP No.4239 of 2020 and CWP No. 2703 of 2020 have raised the contention that the requisite distance between the two retail sale outlets i.e., one of the petitioners and the others allotted by IOC to Agro Industries and Shri Satwant Singh has not been maintained.
8. In replies submitted by IOC in all the petitions, the allegations with respect to non-maintenance of requisite distances from intersections, National Highways, other approach roads and also between two retail sale outlets have not been specifically denied. Thus, the averments with respect to violation of IRC and MoRTH guidelines remain
